This difference between the PCA and the OPC has been one of the
surprises of my experience with the PCA, especially in most recent
past in the midst of their discussions about creation/evolution issues

Apparently, Dabney, Thornwell, Giradeau and almost all of the
Southern Presbyterian theologians at the time of the Hodges and
Warfield viewed the Princetonians friendliness to the new geology and
to evolution with great suspicion. Of course, the PCA has its roots
in this tradition. I used to attribute the PCA's anti-science
perspective to what had observed to be a generally more
"fundamentalist" perspective overall (and thus a sympathy with
young-earth creationism). Having encountered the debate in person in
the PCA, I now understand the tradition a bit more. Apparently, in
the Southern church the issue came to a head around the case of a
James Woodrow recounted in a book by Tait Elder called Woodrow:
Apostle of Freedom (reviewed by Ted Davis in PSCF in 6-97). As I read
it Woodrow held essentially the same position as Warfield and was
removed from his seminary teaching position because of his views.

Interestingly, during and after my trial in the OPC, with my appeals
to Warfield and even Machen, I heard men say that these stalwarts
would not be ordainable in the OPC today given their published views
or, more likely, they would no longer hold the views that I was
pointing to if they knew what we knew today. Although I typically
count myself as a follower of C. Van Til, this is one area where his
presuppositional thought has played into the hands of young-earth
creationists among conservative Presbyterians. Many OPC people see
the Princetonians openness to old earth geology and evolution to be
an extension of their "erroneous" evidentialist apologetic and
epistemology.

TG

>Let's be clear. Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology (c1870)makes it
>clear that he holds firmly to an old earth and in What is Darwinism (1874)
>is prepared to accept that evolution could have happened and that there is
>no theological objection to this though there is to evolution by natural
>selection.
>
>AA Hodge in the 1880s argued for theisitic evolution as did Warfield up to
>his death in 1921.
>As Rich Blinne made it clear that the PCA insists on a six day creation then
>they would regard these Princeton theologians as very dodgy - either
>apostate or on theway or even wooly liberals like bishop spong. Due to their
>compromising with the evolutionary geological timescale their orthodoxy is
>clearly under question as any good YEC would agree with.
>
>I hope my point is clear.
>
>To describe this trio as " orthodox Presbyterians" implies that their
>blatant evolutionism is orthodox as well.
>
>Michael
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bundrick, David" <BUNDRICKD@evangel.edu>
>To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Rich Blinne"
><richblinne@hotmail.com>; <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
>Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 1:43 AM
>Subject: RE: "charismatic" theologies and science
>
>
>Are you saying this "tongue in cheek"?
>
>Hodge, Hodge and Warfield were orthodox Presbyterians teaching at Princeton
>Theological Seminary a century ago. No discussion of American Protestant
>Christian Fundamentalism would be complete without mentioning their names.
>
>David Bundrick
>Th.M., Princeton Theological Seminary
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
>Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 1:58 PM
>To: Rich Blinne; jdac@alphalink.com.au>Cc: asa@calvin.edu>Subject: Re: "charismatic" theologies and science
>
>
>
>I always thought Charles Hodge, A.A Hodge and B.b.Warfield were heretics of
>the first order. Did the beleive in God or did they even accept the
>authority of the bible let alone inerrancy?
>
>
>Michael
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rich Blinne" <richblinne@hotmail.com>
>To: <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
>Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 5:48 AM
>Subject: Re: "charismatic" theologies and science
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----Original Message Follows----
>> From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
>> CC: asa@calvin.edu>> Subject: Re: "charismatic" theologies and science
>> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:40:48 +1000
>>
>> Hi Rich
>>
>> >Thanks for these insights. There is not enough heard of specifically
>> charistmatic and penttecostal responses to science and theology.
>>
>> >How hostile is the PCA to science?
>>
>> It is not hostile to science per se but it is hostile to a science which
>> might conclude that God didn't create in "the space of six days". To
>come
>> to that conclusion is considered utter abandonment (by some) of
>orthodoxy.
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
>> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx>>